One of the main issues surrounding organic versus conventional farming is the effect both have on the environment, specifically in regards to fertilizer and pesticide. Conventional farmers use nitrogen and synthetic pesticides while organic farmers will use “natural biological controls” and animal waste (Paarlberg 174). So which is better?

Some will argue that organic farming is greener for many reasons. For one, the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides runoff into the Mississippi and eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a “Dead Zone” where nothing but algae lives. The major chemical here is nitrogen, which is essential for the higher yield that conventional farmers desire. Organic farmers do not utilize any of these chemicals and therefore do not contribute to this type of water pollution. Second, certain conventional farmers do not utilize things like crop rotations, resulting in extreme soil erosion. These farmers will constantly plant the same crop, mainly corn, over and over without giving the soil any chance to rejuvenate essential nutrients. Organic farmers, in contrast, will alternate between planting corn and legumes or even plant the two together to improve soil conditions. Finally, conventional farmers can make use of genetically modified plants (GMOs) while organic farmers do not. While the environmental effect of this is not certain, organic farmers choose to err on the side of caution. All of these care explained in detail on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation’s (FAO) website.

On the other hand, there are environmental problems associated with organic farming as well. For one, organic farms can not produce as high a yield as conventional farmers and therefore need more land. As Paarlberg mentions in his book, “yields per acre for organic row crops and vegetables are found to be only 40-80 percent as high as the conventional average” (174). As a result, organic farms need much more farmland to achieve the same results. To put this in perspective, Paarlberg gives the example that Europe would “need an additional 28 million hectares of cropland, equal to all the remaining forest cover of France, Germany, Denmark, and Britain combined” to feed itself organically (175). FAO’s website does not address this issue. In addition, using manure as fertilizer does not entirely eliminate harmful runoff, as there are absolutely organic farmers “who over-apply or mismanage animal waste” (Paarlberg 173). Supporters of organic farming will argue that while it does not eliminate harmful runoff, it minimizes it as much as possible.

In conclusion, I don’t think that there is a cut and dry answer to which is better environmentally. I agree with Paarlberg, who argues that “the best farming systems for the environment will actually integrate conventional and organic methods” (174). I really like Natalina’s idea from Iowa Corn that the two can live and thrive together and that the two methods do not have to be pitted against each other. It is important to me to have options, as it is for most Americans, and providing the opportunity to choose between organic and conventional foods is a blessing, not a curse. I do not see the need to eliminate or try to minimize one option or the other as there are plenty of people who are willing to pay for both. As long as there is a market, let the farmers do what they want and the consumers buy what they want.